Currently on a 1090T at 4.1Ghz with good water cooling (Asus m5a97 EVO R2). I mostly use this thing for gaming. Newegg has a deal for $145 for the next few days.... worth it? I am hoping to get the 8320 close to 5Ghz.

So a decent boost in game performance, especially if you OC it (check out the time beyond graphs at the bottom). This really depends a lot more on how much you feel like upgrading and if you're willing to wait til next year when Steamroller comes out. That said your motherboard should support Vishera with the latest bios so this really is a $145 upgrade with some decent performance to boot. That's pretty cheap.

Keep in mind you aren't guaranteed to hit or come close to 5ghz, I have a 8350 and couldn't OC it worth a darn (more voltage actually caused stability issues). I did undervolt it though at stock speeds.

Yeah I've been looking around and the reviews shows slight improvements in some games and more in others. I think I'm going to jump on it because it doesn't appear that Steamroller will end up on AM3+, so this may be my last upgrade for a while.

I currently have a 1090T at 4ghz and many of the games that I have been playing have been bottlenecked by a single core. Looking at Haswell, the 4670k at about 4.8ghz leads to about a 40% increase in single threaded performance which may be better, but would cost about $400 for the upgrade with mobo. As for a drop in upgrade, I don't think its worth it. The 1090T does very well in multithreaded applications and from what I understand the FX-8320 will have the same downfalls as your 1090T.

I guess it comes down to this: is it worth $145 to install this new processor, spend the time overclocking it, only to potentially get a small increase of performance? If it is, then go for it.

Ari Atari wrote:I currently have a 1090T at 4ghz and many of the games that I have been playing have been bottlenecked by a single core. Looking at Haswell, the 4670k at about 4.8ghz leads to about a 40% increase in single threaded performance which may be better, but would cost about $400 for the upgrade with mobo. As for a drop in upgrade, I don't think its worth it. The 1090T does very well in multithreaded applications and from what I understand the FX-8320 will have the same downfalls as your 1090T.

I guess it comes down to this: is it worth $145 to install this new processor, spend the time overclocking it, only to potentially get a small increase of performance? If it is, then go for it.

Next round of games are going to be heavily multi threaded - just saying.

Minecraft, World of Tanks, Runescape, Sanctum 2, and Kerbal Space Program all bottleneck on one core and I don't think that will be changing any time soon. Yes, AAA games have multithreaded support, as I can get about 100 FPS in Battlefield 3 and Black Ops 2 but barely 60 in KSP or Minecraft. I do have a 120hz monitor, so the extra frames don't go to waste.

FYI, you may have a hard time getting the 8120 to 5Ghz. Typically, the 8350's are a binned version of the 8320's, so the nice clocking chips are usually assigned to the higher end SKU. I would imagine you'll require a fair bit of voltage to get that 8120 to 5Ghz. Not saying it's impossible, just maybe not as easy as you think it is.

Yeah Ati and none of those games really require more then that. Battlefield 3 on the other hand runs better on my 8350 then it did on my 3570k (especially while streaming). Smooth as butter. I've honestly never had problems running Minecraft for instance unless you jack it up with Optifine (which really doesn't matter what you're running). Optifine also adds multithreading support.

Games over the next few years will become very heavily multithreaded (which it should've been in the first place) as the new consoles hit the market. They all have AMDs high core count, not so great single threaded performance going for it. I'm actually anxious to see what happens. We may end up in a scenario where a 8350 is equal or better then a 4770k in games if they become better multithreaded (like BF3). That's not only a reversal, but seems like a downgrade instead of a upgrade if you've been buying Intel for the best performance simply because of a software paradigm shift.

Why would an 8350 perform better than a 4770K? Same number of threads, higher IPC on the 4770K...I'm not sure how better performance out of the 8350 is possible...unless applications better leverage the 8350's L2 cache...

Great_Big_Abyss wrote:Why would an 8350 perform better than a 4770K? Same number of threads, higher IPC on the 4770K...I'm not sure how better performance out of the 8350 is possible...unless applications better leverage the 8350's L2 cache...

The concept of thread count gets really fuzzy when Hyperthreading and AMD's "module" concept are involved. The 8350 has 8 integer cores (with a shared FPU for each pair of cores in a module); the 4770K has 4 cores with Hyperthreading. So the 8350 is closer to having 8 "real" cores than the 4770 is. Applications which are heavily multi-threaded and not bottlenecked by floating point performance have the potential to perform better on the FX-8350, since there's less competition between threads for execution resources.

The years just pass like trains. I wave, but they don't slow down.-- Steven Wilson

You may want to pass on this current deal - even a Sandy Bridge i5 quad core model will perform substantially better for current games. As a poster above me said, when the XBone and the PS4 release, multi-threading may be a lot more prevalent, but I'll believe it when I see it. Additionally, games that are bottlenecked by single-threaded performance, like StarCraft 2, will scream on the i5 and do just OK on any AMD processor.

wait.. 4.1ghz on 6 true cores vs lightly or moderately overclocked piledriver is a tit-for-tat in performance... gaming wont see much of a change at all. however if you wait for steamroller.. All the piledriver cpus will be even cheaper.

that's is unless AMD cancels all FX chips as planned.

Cybert said: Capitlization and periods are hard for you, aren't they? I've given over $100 to techforums. I should have you banned for my money.

Star Brood wrote:You may want to pass on this current deal - even a Sandy Bridge i5 quad core model will perform substantially better for current games. As a poster above me said, when the XBone and the PS4 release, multi-threading may be a lot more prevalent, but I'll believe it when I see it. Additionally, games that are bottlenecked by single-threaded performance, like StarCraft 2, will scream on the i5 and do just OK on any AMD processor.

Upgrade cost to go to an FX-8320, $145 . How much to build an i5 based system instead? CPU alone will be over $200 + ~100 for a motherboard? (But a 8320 wont be a step up from a 4.1ghz 1090t)

So yea, I would hope that if you spend over twice as much money, over $300 !!!, you would get a speedup.

And interestingly enought I'm on track to replace a system with a 1090T with a FX-8320. Mainly because it was the cheapest way to get a decent SSE4.2 / AVX developer system.

My interest is also to see how low the voltage can go on the FX-8320 VS overclocking. So I hope saving $40 by not getting the fx-8350 was worth it...

"It depends"I don't think there's much in it. One specific game may slightly favor one chip over the other, and all gaming performance will very likely converge as you raise the graphics resolution and eye candy.

For $145, you could have some fun, then pitch the losing chip on Fleabay. Used 1090Ts are going for $130 ~ $160.

Wow, those have held their value quite well for a CPU chip; that's close to what I paid for a new one around 2 years ago. I guess there must still be demand for these from people trying to squeeze the last bit of performance out of their aging AM2+/AM3 systems.

The years just pass like trains. I wave, but they don't slow down.-- Steven Wilson

Yes, AMD pretty much uses a superior version of hyperthreading, so if multithreaded workloads become more prevalent there may be a shift in how well current chips perform.

JBI I just think it's people who still think x6s can outdo Vishera. They're probably basing such purchases off of Bulldozer reviews they read ages ago. There are people that still vouch for the Q6600s too. It's a weird niche, just sell it to them before they read a review written in like the last two years.

8320 and 8350s actually sell close to their Newegg value on eBay as well for some reason (new or used). I thought there would be surplus there with all the AMD hate, but it appears like everyone who owns or wants a AMD chip doesn't seem to care.

There is a speedup between a 1100t and the 8350, read the review I posted, which was done by TR. He's also planning on OCing the 8320. How much that performance boost is worth is up to him.

Bensam123 wrote:8320 and 8350s actually sell close to their Newegg value on eBay as well for some reason (new or used). I thought there would be surplus there with all the AMD hate, but it appears like everyone who owns or wants a AMD chip doesn't seem to care.

Well, I found it more surprising in the 1090T's case given that it is over 3 years old. At least the 8320 and 8350 are still current chips.

The years just pass like trains. I wave, but they don't slow down.-- Steven Wilson

Wow, those have held their value quite well for a CPU chip; that's close to what I paid for a new one around 2 years ago. I guess there must still be demand for these from people trying to squeeze the last bit of performance out of their aging AM2+/AM3 systems.

Yea. It's hard to judge how deep this demand might be, but I wonder if it would be worth hiring TSMC to crank out a few wafers. You'd think they could sell a few thousand for ~$125 or so. On one hand, a few $100K is chump change; on the other, it might save them selling yet another building. Perhaps this sort of short order would make sense if AMD had any fab capacity of their own.

This level of demand also highlights AMD's dropping-of-the-ball with respect to AM3+ and Steamroller. The company's continued silence is 'perplexing' to put it politely. Their continued lack of straightforward communication must be discouraging (and pissing off) the large installed base of AM3+ users, many of which will consider jumping ship to an i7 platform, if they haven't already.

Geonerd wrote:...discouraging (and pissing off) the large installed base of AM3+ users, many of which will consider jumping ship to an i7 platform, if they haven't already.

It's all been downhill since January 8, 2011, when I ordered a Core i7-2600K. I bought a Llano A8-3850 in mid-2011, but I probably would have done just as well with a Core i3-2105. In the 32 months since Sandy Bridge arrived, Intel hasn't advanced performance very much or cut prices at all, but what has AMD done to compete?

Last edited by JustAnEngineer on Fri Sep 06, 2013 7:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I don't think any upgrade on the AMD platform would be worth it. But there is the FX-6300 for $109 from Amazon which I have. I already had an AM3+ mobo and was running an Athlon II on it, so for me it was worth it. Otherwise go Intel.

I bought a Llano A8-3850 in mid-2011, but I probably would have done just as well with a Core i3-2105.

Even if Steamroller came out tomorrow, it would be too little, too late (again) for them to claw back the market share they've lost over the past few years. All signs are that they realize this, and have effectively thrown in the towel as far as the performance desktop market is concerned.

The years just pass like trains. I wave, but they don't slow down.-- Steven Wilson

Ari Atari wrote: Yes, AAA games have multithreaded support, as I can get about 100 FPS in Battlefield 3 and Black Ops 2 but barely 60 in KSP or Minecraft. I do have a 120hz monitor, so the extra frames don't go to waste.

I get almost constant 120 FPS in Minecraft when I use Optifine (far render distance). Loads four cores to about 50% (highest spike is ~60% on one core), another two at about 25%. I allocate 8 GB RAM for it. 8350@4.6 GHz, Nvidia 670 and a 1440p monitor.

In my old world, I do get drops down to 60 FPS sometimes. Dont really know why. My old world is very old though, seems to work a lot better in a new world.

And more on topic, I would probably keep the 1090T for awhile. Then I would buy a 8350 for an upgrade, the 8320 seems to overclock a bit worse. Black friday deal maybe?

I bought a Llano A8-3850 in mid-2011, but I probably would have done just as well with a Core i3-2105.

Even if Steamroller came out tomorrow, it would be too little, too late (again) for them to claw back the market share they've lost over the past few years. All signs are that they realize this, and have effectively thrown in the towel as far as the high-end desktop market is concerned.

Yea, they've lost the Big Cores war. The high end is gone. But I'd argue that their midrange desktop customer base is worth maintaining.

AMD's upcoming lineup is mighty thin.Their current and near-term APU offerings are hopelessly strangled by the 128 bit, DDR3 interface. Kaveri will not change that, and I see it as an entry-level offering.

After that, what is there? What AMD products are a mid-range gamer supposed to buy? FX is fine for now, if you're one of the few that don't mind buying into a (presumably) dead-end platform, but how long will it take socket FMx to acquire 'proper' memory bandwidth? It seems to me that there is an imminent gap (and a perceived commitment gap) that only Steamroller/AM3+ can fill.

Porting the Kaveri/Steamroller core to AM3 can't be that hard, and doing so would allow the company to maintain a fairly solid foothold in the mid-level segment. I'd think (may be wrong!) that this market is worth selling to. To me, it's inconceivable (say it like Vizinni would!) to believe that AMD would just walk away ... Methinks the Pointy Haired ones have been drinking too much of the APU flavored cool aid AMD's Marketing Monkeys have been pouring lately.

Geonerd wrote:After that, what is there? What AMD products are a mid-range gamer supposed to buy? FX is fine for now, if you're one of the few that don't mind buying into a (presumably) dead-end platform, but how long will it take socket FMx to acquire 'proper' memory bandwidth? It seems to me that there is an imminent gap (and a perceived commitment gap) that only Steamroller/AM3+ can fill.

Umm... Socket AM3+ is also limited to dual-channel DDR3. The main thing it has going for it compared to FM2 is support for ECC DIMMs, which makes it suitable for workstation-class machines but doesn't matter one damn bit to 99% of gamers.

The years just pass like trains. I wave, but they don't slow down.-- Steven Wilson

I would say go for upgrade ONLY if you have money burning in your pocket. For gaming it probably wont make much of a real world impact AT ALL unless you do some multitasking stuff while gaming.

I have both a 1090T (Asus M4A-88-TDV-EVO) and FX-8320 (ASUS Sabretooth). If you DO have $150 burning your pocket and are looking for an excuse for a small but significant upgrade .... the FX might be quite a decent upgrade.

If you take the plunge make certain you understand core-parking issues under Windows (install patches etc) because the Piledriver cores are quite different from the Thuban ones. I run on Fedora 19 Linux with some light gaming on a secondary Windows7 partition for games that dont like Wine.

I OC my 8320 to 4200 MHz (4400 MHz Turbo) using amdpctl. Under Windows you can use similar tweaking software to play with power states (sorry I forget the names).The 1090T runs at 3500 MHz (3600 MHz Turbo)

The 8320 is much faster and cooler both at load and idle. Single threaded is better as is multithreaded. Single Threaded apps also run better with more cores left for other background stuff when you tweak apps to use only certain cores to hardwire priority apps to get their own cores.

I still like the 1090T, for most of my applications performance wise its very comparable but it is quite a bit slower for h264 encoding and compiling, and quite outdated when power and heat envelope is taken into consideration.

Here are my tweaked overclocked voltages and frequencies. Any other FX owners want to post their power states? I could go higher on my air cooler but I try to keep temps to below 60 degrees Celsius at load.